home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: nntp.teleport.com!sschaem
- From: sschaem@teleport.com (Stephan Schaem)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
- Subject: Re: Amiga doesn`t need Planar!
- Date: 12 Feb 1996 17:56:02 GMT
- Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016
- Message-ID: <4fnuvi$2rd@maureen.teleport.com>
- References: <john.hendrikx.4bul@grafix.xs4all.nl> <4fgfts$npf@harpo.uccs.edu> <914.6616T528T1369@norconnect.no>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: julie.teleport.com
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
-
- Kenneth C. Nilsen (kenneth@norconnect.no) wrote:
- : >The chunky vs. planar wars are very interesting (from a programmer's point
- : >of view), but I feel you guys are missing the point.
-
- : >1) Both have thier places, but planar provides memory efficiency. Try
- : >2) Chunky is still very useful, especially for those apps that are going to
-
- : >I think planar is important because the Amiga *always* is doing multiple
- : >tasks, and the memory is more important. No other machine can swap screens
- : >like the Amiga, and with a chunky-only display, you limit the number of
- : >screens that you can have open at once.
-
- : Another point: for us using the Amiga with professional video animations, we
- : are depended on 25 fps full frames where bitplanes is still to be defeeted.
-
- Chunky Ham8 wouldn't be any slower... And its not impossible on PC
- to do the same but in fullres 32bit truecolor or yuv (4:2:2 , or whatever
- your card support). Both would yeld better quality. This has nothing do
- with plannar....
-
- About bitplane and screen... Its all wrong. its on the amiga that you
- limit yourself to the amount of chipram.
-
- I still dont see why people want one or the other.... both are nice.
- 8bit plannar + 8-32bit chunky (up to 4 8bit 'playfield'), thats
- what I want if escom/AT want to make a gfx card, otherwise any 'old'
- PCI pc gfx card will do.
-
- Stephan
-